Andy’s experience with Studio 1 Software Defined Radio

Andy Wilkinson (EI2HWB) left some comments on the new Studio 1 software, which he purchased and has been using with his Perseus:

Being a Perseus owner I purchased the Studio1 software in the hope that there was an intuitive interface and the shortcomings of Perseus had been resolved. However I was very disappointed as the user interface is extremely poor (much worse than Perseus) and would really benefit from a designer with UI experience. […] Although I am not using the software at the moment (back on the Perseus software!) I am hoping that the software may improve with future versions. That said I will not be buying any further updates after the year is up as I feel cheated and let down. It seems to me that the software was rushed out of the door and to be very honest although the technical design on the backend may be reasonable, I have seen better freeware packages in terms of usability!

Andy then commented that he was banned from the Studio 1 email group for his criticisms.

Anyone else out there used Studio 1 with their Perseus? Your reviews are welcome!

9 Responses to Andy’s experience with Studio 1 Software Defined Radio

I would disagree, the software is not a rip off or a scam, it is simply a work in progress that with the help of other users can become better with time. I prefer software that has a less steep learning curve and documentation that exists. It is unfortunate that I bought it at the early stage and I will certainly think twice before jumping in so early in the future.

What in the heck does the software author expect? It appears he created the nice displays and then put no thought into memory management, ease of use, etc. Certainly not worth paying over $200US for it.

Better to stick with SDR-Radio, HDSDR, heck even the later versions of Winrad were easier to use.

I expected a lot from this developer, but the first release was a dissapointment.
Since the first version of the former (freeware) WRPlus, not a lot has been added in functionality.
So Studio 1 to me is still a “luxury” version of the original Winrad.

Most credit has to go to Guiseppe Campana who really made a nice user interface with Studio 1.
But this user interface deserves much more advanced functionality.

At the speed development seems to advance right now, we will see a proper user manual this year, memories and database integration next year and a client-server functionality maybe in 2 years.

I could be wrong but currently I am really dissapointed with functionality, though I really like the graphical interface…

mumble mumble…….
it is very strange to read some comments and opinions about Studio1.
It seems that none of the opinion leaders have understood the true essence of Studio1. Perhaps the lack of a demo version suggests certain things, without ever having experienced it.

It is not a simple redesigning of Winrad +, its DSP engine is totally different, the user interface is different, the logic operation is different, the purpose of use is different.
Studio1 includes such power that no one before could only imagine, it is a professional SDR software.

Try to find a software capable of simultaneously managing different interfaces SDR and, at the same time in each of them, “open” multiple receivers with different characteristics.

Try listening to a quality AM and FM such as Studio1, and then tell me if you find some other software.

Try its AGC, its NOTCH and then tell me again

Try to do this with little or very little CPU power, with job stability and security, without locking your PC or strange BSOD.

Study1 was born only 3 months and a half ago, I think that many things have been done (early bugs corrected immediately) protocol CAT reached (independently for each active receiver), support for Tmate is almost ready (although it will work in independently on each active receiver).

When Studio1 was presented and sold …… none of us said: there are memories, there is the CAT, there Tmate, there is a remote support. We have worked 2 years to Studio1, was a gigantic project (we had the quality goals and we have achieved)

We said many things have to be done, and will be made. None of us has said will be made 3 months, 1 year or 2 years. They will be made ??in time to serve them.

Many people are accustomed to having everything now, no one has patience, and without patience, things are not done well.
It’s easy to do things wrong, we do not want.

It seems to me that the views are a little bit different between users and users, fortunately, there are hundreds of users who are completely satisfied with the money they spent.

All you say about qualities and advanced complexity is absolutely true.
Studio 1 has a level sophistication not found before in this segment.

But please also look at Studio 1 from a general user:
What does he expect from his new “radio”?

Memories with text labels and editing?
Stepsize remembered per mode?
Bandbuttons that remember last used frequency/mode?
Dedicated keys on the PC keyboard for fast function access?
A bandplan maybe?

Such are quite “ordinary” functions, as we have seen on almost any radio equipment for years. Most critical comments I see regard the absence of such commonly accepted functionality.

I have seen not a single criticism about the advanced algorithms,the beautiful graphics,screens & spectra,CPU efficiency,demodulators,AGC,NB,etc…
Conclusion: Well done,they are already fantastic! (And that is remarkable for a first release.)

yes, your suggestions are all in the “to do” list, if they were present until the first release was better but we wanted to give precedence to the most sophisticated and complex to achieve, devoting the simplest functions (management functions) to be included with time after the introduction of the software in the market.

In our idea, Studio should makes clear from the initial release, its quality and power.
We did not expect that, instead, the simplest functions could appear more sensational, incredible.

Now we are very close to announce the new release, complete of the first part of the “to do list” promised 3 month ago in the first brocure: CAT – Tmate – Omnirig.
These new functions was not easy to include, remember: you are using a multi-receiver not a single receiver (any receiver has its these functions independently from other).